Clallam County to join riparian rule lawsuit

Published 5:30 pm Monday, May 11, 2026

PORT ANGELES — The Clallam County commissioners agreed that the county should join a lawsuit against a recently passed forest practice rule.

Clallam County has been asked to join with other agencies in the state, including the Port of Port Angeles, in an amicus brief regarding the Np Riparian Buffer Rule lawsuit against the state Board of Natural Resources Forest Practice Board.

“Amicus briefs are an opportunity for counties or other groups to be a friend of the court, if you will. It’s basically to say, ‘Hey, here’s the impacts on my county of this rule,’” said Cindy Mitchell, the senior director of public affairs at the Washington Forest Protection Association.

Mitchell spoke to the commissioners during their work session Monday and explained the background of the forest practice rules and the change made with the Np Riparian Buffer rule.

In 2001, state forest practice rules were changed for roads, slopes and buffers with the goal of meeting the statewide salmon recovery goals, Mitchell said.

“It set up a system of predictability based on science for forest landowners as investments are long term and having rules change mid-cycle is often difficult to contend with, plus it was fair and balanced,” she said. “So in 2006, the state secured a 50-year habitat conservation plan, which is an agreement with the federal government to maintain these conservation measures in return for a stable regulatory system based on science.”

During a 15-year period, streams over hard rock and soft rock were studied to determine if the temperature values changed after a harvest.

The average rise in water temperature was 1.2 degrees Celsius, but the temperature would go back down after trees grew back in. The state standard for temperature is 16 degrees Celsius, and the average for the streams was 12.2 degrees over soft rock and 14.6 degrees over hard rock.

“So, the technical work group that looks at results of science said, ‘Great, we are below the standards. We’re good. Now let’s investigate what that change meant,’” Mitchell said. “And so they went about their studies to look at any impacts from that temporary change.”

The state Department of Ecology has re-interpreted the rule so that no measurable change can happen after harvest, she said.

“That just is not nature, and it’s not something that landowners can control with buffers only when it comes to water temperature,” Mitchell said.

The new buffer rule was passed in November, expanding buffers for non-fish (Type Np) streams from largely intermittent 50-foot buffers to continuous 65-foot to 70-foot no-harvest buffers. That removed more than 200,000 acres of private forestland from productive use, an economic impact of $1 billion to $1.8 billion.

For Clallam County, the rule removed more than 9,700 acres of private forestland, which removed more than $3.2 million from the county’s excise tax.

The lawsuit that is challenging the rule is asking the following legal questions: Did the Forest Practices Board follow the law? And did the Department of Ecology interpret antidegredation as a hard prohibition correctly?

The rule does not take into consideration whether a temperature change in an Np stream has an impact on the stream, amphibians or large woody debris.

The hearing date for the amicus briefs is Aug. 21. The court is reviewing the record to see if the rules were adopted properly, Mitchell said. If the rule is not stayed or reversed, as the lawsuit seeks, the rule will go into effect Aug. 31.

The cost of taking part in the amicus brief is expected to be between $15,000 and $20,000, but that cost would be split among all participating entities.

Commissioner Randy Johnson said he’s been speaking to commissioners of other counties and has heard back from Skamania, Pacific, Cowitz, Lewis and Grays Harbor counties, although he said he does not yet know if they’re planning to join the amicus brief.

“When we’re talking about economics and environmental protection, there has to be a balance, and that balance should be science,” Commissioner Mike French said. “That balance should be: Where can we do the least amount of harm and still make sure that we have products that can provide jobs, can provide economic activity.”

Science does not support ecology’s Np buffer rule, French said.

All three commissioners stated they agreed with joining the amicus brief.

________

Reporter Emily Hanson can be reached by email at emily.hanson@peninsuladailynews.com.